#CHANGE Trump transition team wants Netanyahu at inauguration
Recall that in 2009, President Hussein Obama's first phone call was to 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen. Israel's Prime Minister at the time was Ehud K. Olmert. The times... they are a changin'. The Trump campaign is pushing for Israel's current Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, to be in Washington at President Elect Trump's inauguration in two weeks.
President-elect Donald Trump’s advisers want to invite Israeli
President Benjamin Netanyahu to the inauguration or arrange a meeting of
the two leaders before then, a source close to the transition said.
Transition leaders led by Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner have been
aggressively courting Netanyahu and want him to attend the Jan. 20
festivities, the source said.
“There’s a plan for Trump to meet with Netanyahu,” the source said.
“They’re talking all the time. And Netanyahu is talking about possibly
going to the inauguration.”
This time, there is real hope for change. And not a moment too soon.
Report: Israel behind '08 assassination of Assad confidante, US monitors Israeli military communications
This guy is so secretive, I have not found his picture online.
Seven years ago next week, I reported on the apparent assassination of Mohammed Suleiman, a close confidante of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the port city of Tartus (which used to have a Russian Naval installation before Bashar was on the run). There were rumors all along that Israel had carried out the assassination.
Now, in a piece of convenient timing, it's being reported once again that Israel did it. But this time, the report is based on documents provided by Edward Snowden and confirmed by US intelligence (which by the way spies on Israeli military communications - imagine the scandal if that report were the other way around Mr. Obama) (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
While Israel has never spoken about its involvement, secret U.S.
intelligence files confirm that Israeli special operations forces
assassinated the general while he vacationed at his luxury villa on the
Syrian coast.
The internal National Security Agency document, provided by former
NSA contractor Edward Snowden, is the first official confirmation that
the assassination of Suleiman was an Israeli military operation, and
ends speculation that an internal dispute within the Syrian government
led to his death.
A top-secret entry in the NSA’s internal version of Wikipedia, called
Intellipedia, described the assassination by “Israeli naval commandos”
near the port town of Tartus as the “first known instance of Israel
targeting a legitimate government official.” The details of the
assassination were included in a “Manhunting Timeline” within the NSA’s
intelligence repository.
According to three former U.S. intelligence officers with extensive
experience in the Middle East, the document’s classification markings
indicate that the NSA learned of the assassination through surveillance.
The officials asked that they not be identified, because they were
discussing classified information.
The information in the document is labeled “SI,” which means
that the intelligence was collected by monitoring communications
signals. “We’ve had access to Israeli military communications for some
time,” said one of the former U.S. intelligence officers.
The former officer said knowledge within the NSA about
surveillance of Israeli military units is especially sensitive because
the NSA has Israeli intelligence officers working jointly with its
officers at NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland.
Read the whole thing. My guess is that (a) this is true, (b) the timing was designed to throw the first of what will be many monkey wrenches in Israel's efforts to convince Congress to vote down the Iran deal, and (c) the part of the article (which I did not quote here) about Israel violating international law is meant to serve as a warning to Netanyahu not to get out of line in his efforts to defeat the Iran deal.
By the way, Netanyahu was not Prime Minister in 2008. Ehud K. Olmert was. Hmmm.
Only in Israel: 'Commitment to peace' claimed to trump taking $600,000 in bribes
Only in Israel would a disgraced former Prime Minister have the gall to call as a character witness the former Prime Minister of a foreign country to urge a reduced sentence for taking $600,000 in bribes because of his 'commitment to peace.' The disgraced former Prime Minister is Ehud K. Olmert (pictured above being greeted in jail by convicted rapist and former President Moshe Katzav). The former Prime Minister of a foreign country is Britain's Tony Blair.
Blair's letter, which highlighted Olmert's commitment to "ensuring that
Israel was protected," but noted his appreciation that "peace was an
indispensable part of such protection," was issued to the court as
Olmert's defense team attempted to roll back the scrutiny assailing
Olmert's reputation and pleaded for the former Labor leader not to serve
any jail time.
...
The Defense emphasized Olmert's personal relationship with other major
figures during his tenure, with Blair's letter suggesting that the two
leader's report going "beyond that between heads of Government", being
"based on friendship and trust with a clear understanding of the needs
and sensitivities of the other side."
A second letter was issued on Olmert's behalf by former Mossad chief Meir Dagan, a man who has probably done more than any other Israeli to ensure that Iran becomes a nuclear weapons state.
Just how corrupt is Olmert? From the original link above:
[I]n March, the court assessed the new [Olmert's former secretary Shula] Zaken recordings, her journal and
much of her testimony, changing their conclusion from acquittal into
convicting Olmert after finding that the evidence proved beyond a
reasonable doubt that at least $153,950 out of the over $600,000 Olmert
was accused of using for illegal personal use was in fact used
illegally.
Damningly, the court found that a recording of Olmert
telling Zaken she could take funds from a secret safe for her illegal
use contradicted his narrative that he was unaware of any such funds
or that he thought they were being used for permitted political
purposes.
Yes, Israelis, our government is often as corrupt as we think it is.
President Hussein Obama and his State Department have made a big deal out of Prime Minister Netanyahu's election campaign statement - since walked back - that there would be no 'Palestinian state' on his watch. The Obami have claimed that 'words matter' (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
"We take him at his word when he said that it wouldn't happen during his
prime ministership, and so that's why we've got to evaluate what other
options are available to make sure that we don't see a chaotic situation
in the region," the president said in an interview with The Huffington
Post on Friday.
Citing a similar statement by White House spokesman Josh Earnest, Rabbi Shmuely Boteach points out that the Obama administration doesn't treat all words equally.
So let’s get this straight. When foreign
leaders speak, it matters. What they say is consequential. Bibi’s going
to have to pay for his remarks.
But I have one question. Why doesn’t any of this apply to Iran? Why, on Saturday Ayatollah Ali Khameini uttered the words “Death to America” even as John Kerry was expressing optimism the very same day that the United States would come to a nuclear accord with Iran!
Suddenly, Iran’s words don’t matter?
Boteach goes on to speculate why Netanyahu's words matter while Khameni's words can be swept aside.
My own belief is this. President Obama is
desperate for some foreign policy victories. There’s a year-and-a-half
left to his Presidency and the world is on fire. From Iran to Boko Haram
to ISIS to Putin to Hezbollah to Al Qaida and Hamas, bad guys are
running amok under this president. American Foreign policy is a
shambles.
The only ally President Obama can truly expert
pressure on for a deal that would give him the lasting foreign policy
legacy he needs and craves is Israel. And in the past Israeli Prime
Ministers have proven so utterly malleable. American Presidents have
squeezed them like lemons.
But Bibi refuses to be squeezed. He won’t play
ball. He won’t withdraw from Judea and Samaria and allow “Hamastan” on
his eastern border the way it is in Gaza. He won’t shut up about
America’s capitulation to the Iranian mullahs that would leave them with
a military-grade nuclear program. He won’t go quietly into the nuclear
night while America appeases one of the most violent and vile regimes on
earth.
This darned Bibi guy just won’t bend.
And our President finds the intransigence so utterly frustrating.
I don't believe things would be any better if (God Forbid) the Left had won the election. At the end of the day, even Herzog and Livni could not have concluded a deal that gave the 'Palestinians' everything they want, both because the 'Palestinians' would never agree to any deal and because the Left would never succeed in getting such a deal through the Knesset. Look what happened to Ehud Olmert in 2008.
And the Clinton's hatred for Netanyahu also might have something to do with Obama's attitude. After all, Hillary was Secretary of State.
But in the meantime, the hypocrisy is flaming. Will anyone in the media call Obama on it? Calling @APDiplowriter....
The United States helped build
the bomb, the former official said, and tested it repeatedly at a CIA
facility in North Carolina to ensure the potential blast area was
contained and would not result in collateral damage.
“We probably blew up 25 bombs to make sure we got it right,” the former official said.
The
extraordinarily close cooperation between the U.S. and Israeli
intelligence services suggested the importance of the target — a man who
over the years had been implicated in some of Hezbollah’s most
spectacular terrorist attacks, including those against the U.S. Embassy
in Beirut and the Israeli Embassy in Argentina.
The United States
has never acknowledged participation in the killing of Mughniyah, which
Hezbollah blamed on Israel. Until now, there has been little detail
about the joint operation by the CIA and Mossad to kill him, how the car
bombing was planned or the exact U.S. role. With the exception of the
2011 killing of Osama bin Laden, the mission marked one of the most
high-risk covert actions by the United States in recent years.
Israel, of course, has said 'no comment.' So has the CIA. But over the past week we've been warned repeatedly about how Prime Minister Netanyahu would be 'jeopardizing' cooperation with the United States if he comes to Washington to speak to Congress in March. Cooperation like this? Well, maybe.
Really? This comes out right now? The “new” book by Robert B. Baer cited in the article was actually published in October — and it doesn’t say there was collaboration. Baer and unnamed others have been gotten to confirm it, apparently. But the timing is distinctly odd, given the recent dust-ups between Hezbollah and the IDF.
You might almost think someone was trying to add fuel to the fire.
Notice how the finger points at an event in the Bush years, and not at
cooperation since Obama took office, although there undoubtedly has been
such cooperation.
So Obama is burning the bridges between the US and Israel because he's ticked off that Netanyahu is coming to the US to tell Congress that Israel is opposed to Obama's weak policies on Iran. How short sighted!
Hamas’s highly publicized executions
during the war, and in particular last week, of alleged traitors were
not aimed at unveiling and disrupting Israeli intelligence operations.
They were aimed at sending a clear message to the Gazans: We are Hamas
and we are here to stay. Don’t dare revolt against us.
But the locals have a long memory. They will remember who brought them the calamity.
In a sense, the Gaza war is reminiscent
of what happened during the Second Lebanon War in 2006. Hezbollah was
defeated. Its secretary-general admitted it in public. But then he heard
Israeli defense commentators who criticized the war’s conduct by
then-prime minister Ehud Olmert’s government. That made the Hezbollah
leader regain his self-confidence.
Hassan Nasrallah told himself that if
stupid Israel thought that it was defeated, so let it be – and he
declared his false victory.
Eight years later, it is quite clear
that “the Second Lebanon War” brought Israel significant gains at the
strategic level. Northern Israel has enjoyed peace and tranquility.
Hezbollah is deterred and doesn’t dare to initiate violent and
aggressive actions against the Jewish state. Nasrallah himself is in
hiding, fearing for his life.
As then, some of the veteran
commentators in the 2006 war coverage now express the same criticism
with the same weeping voices, claiming that Hamas defeated Israel.
Sooner or later it will emerge that as against Hezbollah, Israel will deter Hamas too.
I don't buy Melman's comments about the Second Lebanon War. The thing that is false about the results of that war is the quiet that followed it. We had six years of 'quiet' when Ehud Barak fled southern Lebanon in 2000 - would Melman also call that a victory? Hezbullah has rearmed to become a far more formidable force than they were in 2006, and when they find an opportune moment they will strike. The reason that moment didn't arrive last month may be because Hezbullah is preoccupied with serving the interests of its Iranian masters in Syria. But that moment is likely to arrive eventually.
And the same goes for Hamas. The real test of whether this war (or 'operation' as the government insists on calling it) was a success is what happens going forward. How much of Israel's stated objectives were achieved? It's not just a question of whether Hamas will shoot off 50 rockets next week. It's also a question of whether they will rebuild their rocket supply, rebuild their tunnels, and sit and wait like Hezbullah is doing for an opportune moment to strike us. That moment could even - God Forbid - be coordinated between the two terror organizations.
The concept of deterrence requires rational actors. Hamas is not a rational actor. Think of Iran sending young boys to blow up mines in its war with Iraq in the 1980's. Could Iran be deterred? No. Because they were convinced that it was their duty to kill themselves and to send their children to their deaths. The same is true of Hamas - and by the way the same is true of Hebzullah. There is no such thing as deterring these people. They regard death as a reward and they don't care what happens to them until death.
And you thought no one was more arrogant than President Hussein Obama.... Meet Ehud K. Olmert.
Tel Aviv District Court Judge David Rozen on Sunday rejected former
prime minister Ehud Olmert's request to leave the country on business
for four days on the grounds that he has been convicted and sentenced to jail time for bribery.
Olmert requested to travel from June 9-13 in order to facilitate various business deals including foreign investment in Israel.
Olmert's former chief-architect in Jerusalem, Uri Shitrit, made a similar request which was denied in the same opinion.
The
court said that the only exception for leaving the country was special
medical needs, which did not apply to either of the convicted men.
Olmert
was sentenced to six years in prison for his conviction on two counts
of bribery in the Holyland real estate affair last month.
The judge delayed the arrest and imprisonment of all of the Holyland defendants until September 1.
In Israel, there is something known as a tzav ikuv yetzia min ha'aretz (an order to stop you from leaving the country). In most cases, you don't get one because of a criminal conviction. You get them because you owe money. Until a couple of years ago, it was difficult to find out whether you had one against you without going to the airport and trying to leave the country. Now, there's a number you can call during business hours....
I have a friend who came to Israel for a weekend 13 years ago and still cannot leave the country because of such an order - he allegedly owes money. I had another friend - who R"L passed away two years ago - who called me from the airport at 3:00 am and asked if I could convince the border guards to let him on the 1:00 am flight to New York (which had already been held for two hours) because he had an appointment in New York at 11:00 am that day for chemotherapy. He owed property tax (arnona) on an apartment he had vacated years before. I could not get him out, and eventually - at 4:00 or 5:00 am - someone who lived closer to the airport than I do brought him the money to pay the arnona (for the second time) by which time the 1:00 am flight had left and he had to wait for the first flight of the morning and miss his appointment.
But convicted felon Ehud Olmert is allowed to leave for medical reasons and has the gall to ask permission to leave for a purported 'business trip.' And you wonder why this country is so corrupt?
Will they soon be roommates in Ramle prison? Probably not. Olmert gave up the pretension of keeping Kosher when he finished his term as Mayor of Jerusalem.
A new low: Former Prime Minister Olmert gets six years for bribery
In a country where a former President is sitting in jail for sexual assault, you might have thought we could not go much lower. Well, we just might have. As many of you probably know, former Prime Minister Ehud Korruption Olmert has been sentenced to six years in jail for accepting bribes in connection with the construction of the Holyland colossus on the southern edge of Jerusalem.
Olmert going jail barely scratches the surface of the rot and corruption among Israel's top officials. I want to show you two small points in the article linked above rather than going through the whole thing (which I am too busy to do anyway - those of us Israelis who are honest work hard for a living), in order to give you some idea why Israel's ruling classes are so corrupt.
Experts had been estimating that Olmert would likely get at least a
few years in prison, and that his being prime minister would not get him
special treatment.
Still, on a separate prior and less serious
conviction in his July 2012 Jerusalem corruption trial, Olmert received
only community service with the court noting his service to the state as
one of the reasons for leniency.
Usually, elites like Olmert get off the hook no matter what they do. It's only when the corruption hits the judges over the head that they feel they must act.
The judge added that Olmert was an extremely talented man that made a
great contribution to the state through his public service. Rozen said,
however, that his hands were tied by law to certain set punishment
guidelines without discretion.
Rozen said that Olmert was guilty
of "moral turpitude," meaning that he would not be allowed to reenter
politics for at least seven years.
Why do the judge's hands have to be tied in order for him to do the right thing?
And notice that they're already counting the years, months and days until Olmert can return to politics. For those of you who lived through the '70's in the US, can you imagine the voters ever electing Richard Nixon to another office? Spiro Agnew? In most of the western world, when you're convicted of corruption or bribery, your career in politics is over. Not in Israel. And until that changes, we Israelis will continue to be victimized by corrupt politicians like Olmert.
Finally: Ehud Korruption Olmert convicted on bribery charges
It's been a long time coming, but it's finally happened. Former Prime Minister Ehud K. Olmert has been convicted of bribery in what's known as the Holyland case. The Holyland is the eyesore that overlooks the Malcha mall on the right side of the Begin expressway in southern Jerusalem. Eyesore because what was supposed to be a 25,000 square foot project became a colossal 311,000 square foot project due to bribes paid to Olmert and others.
But first, let's go to the videotape.
Completing nearly two years of what may be looked back on as the
trial of the century, the Tel Aviv District Court on Monday convicted
former prime minister Ehud Olmert on charges of bribery.
With
a thundering ruling that will shake the country, Judge David Rozen
also convicted former Jerusalem Mayor Uri Lupolianski, former Bank
Hapoalim Chairman Dan Dankner, Olmert's former chief-of-staff Shula
Zaken and, in total, 10 out of 13 individual defendants (3 defendants
are corporations.)
Judge David Rozen said that Olmert lied in court. The court cited
Zaken's total devotion to Olmert as proof that he had to know about all
of the bribes she was receiving from main state witness Shmuel Duchner.
Rozen said that Zaken even got convicted in the prior Jerusalem corruption trial rather than testify against Olmert.
On
the NIS 500,000 in bribes given to Yossi Olmert, Ehud's brother, the
court completely rejected Ehud's story that he did not know that Duchner
gave the money to Yossi. The court added that there was no reason for
Duchner to give Yossi money except at Ehud's request since they did not
know each other.
Rozen said that Duchner was always careful to
make sure sponsors like Olmert knew he had given bribes to secure their
help with the Holyland project.
Olmert was convicted of some of
the most serious bribery charges including large sums. Absent Rozen
being very sympathetic since Olmert is a former prime minister (and
Olmert did get this sympathy at his Jerusalem trial) he could be looking at serious jail time. Sentencing arguments in the case were scheduled to begin on April 28.
The judge completely rejected Zaken's story that money she got from Duchner was not bribes, but part of a romance between them.
Rozen
called Zaken a "central mover" in the bribery scheme, telling the
state that he is not convinced he wants to accept an easy sentence for
plea bargain. He added that in light of his conviction of Olmert
already, it is unclear that her evidence is a "revolution."
...
Though the state originally rejected Zaken's new evidence as
insufficient, at the start of last week, Zaken produced to the state a
series of cassette tapes which the state said provide a "serious
suspicion" of obstruction of justice and witness tampering against
Olmert.
By moving forward with the verdict, the plea bargain
reportedly could require Zaken to cooperate with the state in filing a
new indictment against Olmert for the obstruction of justice charges –
though the state may call it a day having gotten a conviction.
In
the Holyland trial, Olmert was accused of accepting over NIS 1.5
million in bribes (out of around NIS 9 million given to public officials
in total), either directly or through Zaken or his brother Yossi to
smooth over various legal and zoning obstacles. The allegations relate
to the 1993-mid 2000s period while Olmert was mayor of Jerusalem and
Minister of Infrastructure, Trade and Industry.
The prosecution's closing arguments already significantly backed off of the NIS 1.5 million number to around NIS 800,000.
...
With a conviction, Olmert's career could be over and he could even face jail time.
Judge Rosen announced the acquittal of real estate men Shimon Galon
and Amnon Safran, as well as former Israel Lands Authority head Yaakov
Efrati. According to law, acquittals need to be announced at the start
of the decision.
Other defendants include former Jerusalem mayor Uri Lupoliansky,
former city engineer Uri Sheetrit, and businessman Hillel Cherney. All
in all, there were 13 people and three companies on the defendants'
bench in this case.
The judge noted that the testimony of state witness Dachner was
detailed but also contradictory. He preferred Dachner's testimony to
Olmert's, however, and it was the key to the conviction. Olmert "tried
to besmirch the witness, even at the price of lying to the court," the
judge added.
"Hundreds of thousands of shekels were transferred to public
leaders,” wrote Rosen. “The dirty money was given in order to advance
the business of the people who gave the money. Every defendant has his
own corruption case. Dachner came up with the idea and carried out the
bribery deals. In the court, he answered the lawyers' questions as best
he could.”
Dachner gave hundreds of thousands of shekels in bribes to Zaken, the
judge determined. He also "bought Olmert's services," Judge Rosen
wrote. Dachner gave Olmert's brother, Yossi, 500,000 shekels, as a favor
to Ehud Olmert, the judge found. Yossi Olmert had been a successful and
famous academician before he was plunged into debt and left Israel for
the United States.
Rosen also had some devastating comments on Israel's political system.
"We're talking about corrupt and filthy practices," Judge David Rosen saidwhile reading out the verdict, his remarks playing out across all Israelimedia.
He also spoke of a "corrupt political system which has decayed over theyears... and in which hundreds of thousands of shekels were transferred toelected officials".
Rosen also said the former premier had lied to the court in a bid to"blacken the name" of the state's witness.
Olmert reportedly sat expressionless throughout the verdict.
The reading of the verdict is ongoing and has been followed live by
Israeli media since it began, with reporters flitting in and out of the
courtroom to report on the developments.
The sides are expected to file appeals to the Supreme Court.
If Olmert's career is over, the system will by definition be cleaner.
Oh my: Shlomo Avineri admits Abu Mazen will never sign
Long-time 'peace' advocate Shlomo Avineri has written a piece in Israel's Hebrew 'Palestinian' daily acknowledging that 'Moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen will never sign a 'peace' deal (with thanks to Steve O).
But
what came out of all that? When Olmert proposed in dozens of meetings
that Abbas sign a document containing the Israeli concessions, he
refused. Olmert explains this by saying that Abbas did not say either
yes or no. This is patently ridiculous: By refusing to sign, Abbas
clearly said no.
Evidently,
Abbas was not ready to commit to anything, but he was able to get
Olmert to consent to far-reaching concessions, and then halted the
negotiations. The upshot is that when the negotiations resume, the
Palestinian side will insist that they must begin “where they left off” –
with the starting point being the Israeli positions as set forward in
Olmert’s generous proposal, with no concession having been made by the
other side.
Am
I misinterpreting things? This is exactly what happened in 1995 in
Yossi Beilin’s talks with Abbas. Then, too, the talks led to extensive
Israeli concessions; then, too, the Israeli side sought to put things
down on paper and fashion a final accord – and then, too, Mahmoud Abbas
refused to sign. There was never any Beilin-Abbas Agreement. There was
only a paper laying out Israeli concessions.
At
Camp David, then-U.S. President Bill Clinton became fed up with this
method and, as he ran out of patience, told Yasser Arafat that so far he
had rejected every offer. Perhaps you have a proposal of your own,
Clinton suggested to Arafat. But no such Palestinian proposal was ever
placed on the table.
The
Palestinians have never outlined their overall vision of an agreement,
except, of course, in regard to the territorial issue. But on matters of
crucial importance to Israel – forgoing the right of return, some form
of recognition of Israel as the Jewish nation-state – the Palestinian
leadership has clearly rejected the Israeli position. Though Abbas has
stated that he personally has no desire to return to Safed, he has also
declared that the Palestinians cannot give up the right of return,
saying it is an “individual right.” And both Abbas and Saeb Erekat, his
chief negotiator, have outright rejected all calls to accept Israel as
the Jewish nation-state, citing the basic Palestinian position that the
Jews are a religious community, not a nation.
Abbas’
refusal to sign a document with Olmert or Beilin has a clear
implication: not that he is no partner for talks, but that he is an
excellent partner for talks — as long as they are talks designed to lead
Israel to make more and more concessions, and to put them in writing.
Then, on one pretext or another, he is unwilling to sign and brings the
negotiations to a halt, so they can be restarted in the future “where
they left off”: with all the previous Israeli concessions included, and
no concessions having been put forward by the Palestinian side.
In
certain circles in Israel nowadays, having anything positive to say
about Ehud Barak is considered heresy. But he did reach the correct
conclusion from all this. His statement that he went to Camp David in
2000 to expose Arafat’s true face may be regarded with some skepticism.
He went to that summit in the honest belief that his readiness to make
major concessions, which endangered his political standing, would bear
fruit. But when he saw that the Palestinians were prepared to do nothing
but engage in negotiations that would squeeze more and more concessions
from Israel, without committing to anything in return, he drew the
proper conclusion.
The only downside to this article is the last paragraph, in which Avineri reaches the wrong conclusion.
If
a similar thing happens in the current negotiations as well, Israel
will have to prepare an alternative to the ever-elusive comprehensive
agreement: a serious proposal for interim or partial agreements,
unilateral moves, a halt to more construction in the territories, and a
willingness to acknowledge that even in the absence of a final agreement
that officially ends the conflict, there are things that can be done to
reduce the friction and bring about significant change – not only in
Israel but also among the mainstream of the Palestinian national
movement.
No. All those things do is ensure that the 'Palestinian' recalcitrance will continue. The thing to do if there is no agreement (and it should have been done a long time ago) is to get up, walk away and build everywhere, because it's our land. The only way that the 'Palestinians' might consider making a real peace (and I don't believe they ever will) is if they think they have something to lose by continuing to say no.
No great surprises here. David Ignatius reported in Saturday's Washington Post that Prime Minister Netanyahu said no to 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen's call to deploy NATO troops in Judea and Samaria. This is from the first link.
An Israeli official confirmed to JPost that Kerry's quote to Ignatius is accurate.
But that won't stop Israel's Jimmy Carter from continuing to push the NATO idea.
On Friday, former prime minister Ehud Olmert told Channel 2 that he,
together with former defense minister Ehud Barak had already told the
Americans during the 2008 Annapolis peace process that they were willing
to withdraw the IDF from the Jordan Valley within the context of a
final-status agreement. But he did not offer any details of that plan.
Olmert
also said he believed – based on his conversations with Abbas – that
when all the details will be worked out for a final-status agreement,
the issue of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state could be resolved.
'Palestinian' negotiators are pouring cold water on claims by US Secretary of State John FN Kerry that 'progress' is being made in 'negotiations' between Israel and the 'Palestinians.'
“Kerry is revolving in a vicious cycle,” said Azzam al-Ahmed, member of
the Fatah Central Committee. “If he continues to propose to the
Palestinian side what he’s proposing, he won’t achieve anything.”
Al-Ahmed told the Jordanian daily Al-Ghad that he does not believe that Kerry made any progress during his last visit to the region.
Al-Ahmed revealed that Kerry proposed to the Palestinians the idea of a “greater Jerusalem” as a capital for two states.
According
to the Fatah official, Kerry's proposal does not consider east
Jerusalem as part of the "territories occupied in 1967."
Al-Ahmed said that this proposal would destroy the American efforts to achieve peace.
He
said that the Palestinians rejected the idea because it was not clear
whether Jerusalem’s borders would extend all the way to the Dead Sea or
stop at Abu Dis (on the eastern outskirts of the city).
Al-Ahmed
reiterated the PA’s opposition to any Israeli presence in the Jordan
Valley or any other part of Palestinian territories.
...
“Kerry started talking about a framework agreement during his last
three visits to the region,” al-Ahmed said. “He proposed a security plan
which the Palestinian side considered a step back from previous
agreements with the US and former prime minister Ehud Olmert.”
He
claimed that the US “retraction” encourages Israel to ignore
international legitimacy and previous understandings between Olmert and
PA President Mahmoud Abbas.
Yes, but the deal with Olmert - as lousy as it was - was that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed. So there is no obligation to return to what was agreed by Olmert. It is gone.
New report shows Israeli government conspiring to maintain Wakf control over Temple Mount
I saw this report last week, and unfortunately thought it was just another report about about how the Muslims are destroying priceless Jewish archaeology on the Temple Mount (see picture above). Sadly, there's more to it than that.
In 2008, Israel's state comptroller produced a report that was highly critical of the State's handling of the Temple Mount. The issues involved included the aforementioned destruction, the prevention of Jewish prayer on the Mount (which as some of you may recall is not something my rabbis permit me to do), and the general control that the Muslim Wakf exercises on the Mount.
From 2008 (during the Olmert government) to 2010 (during the Netanyahu government), the government managed to force the comptroller to cut out two thirds of the report. In 2010, the Netanyahu government convinced a Knesset subcommittee that the report should be buried out of 'national security' and 'foreign policy' concerns.
The report has been buried for three years. Last week, it showed up on a website called The Jewish Voice of New York. Parts of the report have also been translated into English on that site, and they are truly shocking. Moshe Dayan apparently continues to determine Israel's approach to the Temple Mount from his grave.
This is from the first link.
The following report issued by the Israeli government is of a previously
classified nature. It reveals the terrifying truth about the Israeli
conspiracy to relinquish control of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount to hands of
the Muslim Waqf. Each past of this report provides a detailed account
of the methods taken by the Waqf to vanquish the inextricable ties that
the Jewish people have to Jerusalem. As a place that is of significant
holiness to Jews around the globe; the Waqf has strictly forbidden Jews
to pray there and they enforce their draconian decrees against Jews with
a palpable zeal. The photo that accompany this article graphically
depict the massive and well orchestrated Muslim campaign to maintain
sole autonomy of the Temple Mount; with the clandestine cooperation of
the Israeli government.
I'm embedding the parts that are in English for your convenience.
Edward Snowden has arrived in Jerusalem, will Pollard be next?
The latest batch of leaked documents from the NSA whistleblower's
fountain were the talk of the Israeli weekly cabinet meeting. i24news
evening edition on the Israeli reactions to the latest espionage
revelations.
Let's go to the videotape.
The reaction should be 'private and mild' only if it results in Pollard's release.
I note that after 5-6 posts mentioning Pollard in the last few days, none of the regular commenters who oppose his release have come out of the woodwork. Is silence agreement? Does everyone now see what hypocrites lead the American government?
Israel has refused to issue an official reaction to the revelations made public by The Guardian
on Friday regarding American and British surveillance of former prime
minister Ehud Olmert and ex-defense minister Ehud Barak in 2009.
Unnamed officials in Jerusalem, however, told Channel 2 on Friday
that they “did not fall off their chairs” when hearing the news, which
was first reported by The Guardian and The New York Times, that British and American intelligence agents were tracking the emails of Olmert and Barak.
The
British and American newspapers reported that the Government
Communications Headquarters, working in concert with the US National
Security Agency, kept track of electronic mail records belonging to
Olmert in addition to an email account used to send messages between
Barak and one of his top aides.
The Guardian and the Times
cited a top-secret document produced by the GCHQ in January 2009. It is
one of a slew of documents leaked by former NSA analyst Edward Snowden.
If the allegations are true, it would be the latest in a string of
embarrassments for Washington, which was caught conducting espionage on
allies like German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
...
According to The New York Times, which shared information revealed by Snowden with The Guardian as well as the prestigious Germany daily Der Spiegel, two Israeli embassies were also targeted for spying.
Olmert told The New York Times that the email which was hacked into just after Operation Cast Lead “was an unimpressive target.”
The former prime minister told the newspaper that the most sensitive
information that he shared with the Americans was revealed in private,
face-to-face conversations with then-president George W. Bush.
I wonder whether Ed Snowden would like to live in Israel.... In the meantime, Jonathan Pollard languishes in an American jail. The hypocrisy of it all....
It was a moment of high symbolism. More than 50 years after the Cuban
Revolution, the United States and Cuba still do not have diplomatic
relations. The President has eased some of the economic embargo and
travel restrictions that the administration of President George W. Bush
strongly enforced, but relations still are tense. Cuba continues to
imprison an American citizen, Alan Gross, who was arrested in 2009 on
charges of attempting to destabilize the Cuban government.
Obama knew, of course, that Castro would be on stage. But refusing to
shake Castro's hand would not have been in keeping with Mandela's
legacy of reconciliation. And it was not the first handshake between
American-Cuban leaders. In 2000, at the United Nations, then-President
Bill Clinton shook hands with Fidel Castro, the leader of the Cuban
Revolution, its first revolutionary president, and Raul's brother.
Obama says he wants to improve relations with Cuba, but disagreements
over human rights violations and other issues continue to keep the
countries apart.
The handshake came before Obama's speech, in which he made remarks about reconciliation.
Somehow, I think Ronald Reagan would have avoided that handshake. And somehow, if Netanyahu or Peres had shown up, I can think of a lot of 'world leaders' who would have avoided shaking their hands.
Netanyahu's aides defended the premier's tough and defiant public
criticism of the interim deal signed between the Islamic Republic and
world powers freezing Tehran's nuclear program for six months in return
for minor sanctions relief.
"There's a collapse of the sanctions against Iran, what are we to do? Send faxes to the White House?"
"Seventy-five
years ago, before we had a state, the Jews tried to hold backroom talks
with [then-US president Franklin D.] Roosevelt, and it did not really
help the Jews of Europe," they added, according to Channel 2.
...
While Netanyahu himself did not respond to his predecessor's comments
directly, his aides offered a harsh condemnation of Olmert's views.
"Not
everyone has experience in continuous failure like Ehud Olmert does,"
they were quoted as saying. "Like his failure in running the country, in
understanding the international state of things and in diplomacy."
Olmert
"can talk to the Americans about the borders of Qalqilya in backrooms,
but at the end of the day, in these kind of topics, you have to raise
your voice," they added.
'Senior officials in the White House' call Netanyahu 'desperate and weak'
'Senior officials in the White House' are calling Prime Minister Netanyahu 'desperate and weak' due to his refusal to just sign the damn agreement.
Israeli television Channel 10 quoted the officials as saying
“His pronouncements show a lack of self-confidence,” in an unusually
harsh personal attack on Netanyahu. “We are not perturbed by his vocal
opposition.”
This from the President who has done more to weaken the United States than any President ever.
Netanyahu's response:
"As the prime minister of Israel, I warn time and time again of the
dangers that are related to the Iranian nuclear program,” he added.
“When I see a danger to the citizens of Israel I will not remain
silent.”
"We've declared war on the United States administration,” Olmert said
at a special debate at the Institute for National Security Studies on
Sunday.
"First and foremost,” said Olmert, “we must steer clear of anything
that might give the impression that we want to lock horns with our
biggest ally."
Disagreements with the US must never be handled in a way “that might
give the impression, G-d forbid... of a provocative tone of personal
confrontation with the man whose goodwill and support for the state of
Israel are perhaps the most important basis for the state of Israel's
strategic interest.”
"There is one state in the world that votes for Israel in the UN
throughout the years, systematically, even in cases when we were not
necessarily 100% right. They always stood at our side. All of these
attacks, all the attempts to sic Congress against the American
administration – this is a very serious mistake. The only way is to
cooperate with the US, modestly, with restraint, with wisdom, and not
carry out the argument in unceasing attacks on the Amercian
administration.”
With the exception of the Carter years, that was all true until the current occupant of the White House was elected. Now, we have little choice but to fight. And Olmert, the egotistical sleaze bag who sent over a hundred IDF soldiers to their deaths after signing a lopsided cease fire in Lebanon, ought to learn to keep his mouth shut.
The fact that the slimy Olmert has become Netanyahu's biggest domestic critic argues in favor of supporting the Prime Minister.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
